Attack powers that have a target line and deal damage are attacks (See: Magic Missile). Ergo, Flurry of Blows is an attack.

This is clarified in the FAQ for Player's Handbook, in case anyone was wondering where it's coming from.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

"38. What happens if I use magic missile while benefiting from a power like greater invisibility? Does it count as an attack and would my invisibility end? Yes, it does, and yes, it would. The initial use of any attack power that has a target line, an attack line, or both counts as making an attack. Because of this fact, using an attack power like the fighter's rain of steel does not count as making an attack, since the power has neither a target line nor an attack line."

The main concern with the free action thing was trying to use Flurry along another source of a free action attack (e.g. Two Weapon Opening). Presumably, at least as the rules stand now, TWO, the level 16 feature of the Kulkor Arms Master, Reckless Attacker, Immortal Curse, etc, don't work very well alongside Flurry of Blows.

I would agree that Blurred Strikes ki focus is a specific exception to the general rule.

While you can no longer stack free action extra attacks on the same turn, some rules elements grant extra attacks that are not free actions. For example, you could get four extra attacks on a critical hit with the Fang of the World epic destiny at level 24 (specific overrides general) with a rending waraxe, if you held a hand-crossbow in your off-hand and had the Two-Fisted Shooter feat.

Here's is an excerpt containing Ethan's response in a recent CustServ exchange that I had.

...A Warden Essentials article (Dragon 379 p41) stated under Nature's Wrath header, "It's a free action. One thing this means is that you can use Nature's Wrath at any time in your turn, including midway through another action such as a move or a charge..."

Are triggered effects considered free actions?

- Triggered actions can be free actions among other action types. The important thing to remember with triggered actions is that they happen when the trigger is met and only at that time.

What about effects that don't explicitly state they are a free action such as the critical effect of a Rending Weapon? Can a fighter combine the Reckless Attacker feat benefit on a critical hit, "make a melee basic attack as a free action" with the Rending Weapon critical effect, "make a basic attack against the same target?"

- Yes, you will be able to combine these triggered actions to gain two additional attacks after scoring a critical hit."

Hi guys can I clarify this for those of us who are late to the party and might not be entirely sure what is going on.

1. So flurry of blows is an attack and therefore can only be used once per round. 2. Since flurry of blows only adds to damage one attack being done by some other means, then the argument above is that FOB can only be added to one attack per round, even if there were multiple attacks a character might be allowed to get off in a single round?

3. Presumably you are not saying (as this wouldn't make sense unless I've misunderstood you hence the clarification) that FOB is an attack of its own and therefore cannot be added to an existing attack to supliment the damage?

Hi guys can I clarify this for those of us who are late to the party and might not be entirely sure what is going on.

1. So flurry of blows is an attack and therefore can only be used once per round.

Flurry of blows is an attack that is a triggered free actions. Triggered free actions can only be used to attack once per turn.

2. Since flurry of blows only adds to damage one attack being done by some other means, then the argument above is that FOB can only be added to one attack per round, even if there were multiple attacks a character might be allowed to get off in a single round?

Flurry of blows is technically a separate source of damage from the triggering attack. It doesn't really add damage to the triggering attack. It's two separate sources of damage.

FoB usually can only be used 1/round anyway (the power itself says 1/round). Blurred Strike ki focus increases this to 2/round. The point of the discussion above is that flurry of blows cannot be used in the same round as other free action triggered attacks - e.g. Reckless Attacker.

3. Presumably you are not saying (as this wouldn't make sense unless I've misunderstood you hence the clarification) that FOB is an attack of its own and therefore cannot be added to an existing attack to supliment the damage?

Thanks for the clarification

Ab

Flurry of Blows is an attack of its own. But that doesn't stop it from being triggered once per round on your turn. It's just that you won't be able to use Flurry of Blows as well as other free action, triggered attacks, in the same round. There's nothing to stop you from making other standard action attacks. It's only the free action attacks that step on each others' toes.

It's just that you won't be able to use Flurry of Blows as well as other free action, triggered attacks, in the same round. There's nothing to stop you from making other standard action attacks. It's only the free action attacks that step on each others' toes.

(Having played a ranged warlord who could, under the right circumstances, hand out up to four free-action attacks in one turn...)

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

So if your sorcerer multiclasses Stone Fist Monk, you can't use Flurry of Blows (post-essentials) in the same round as Lightning Daggers~

WHAT?! They nerfed the sorcermonk lightning dagger flurry nova combo?

RAAAAAR! *flips table over*

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

I'm way behind here (don't have the book yet). Was FoB updated in the way that I heard sneak attack was going to be? That is, FoB can be triggered once per turn and is no longer bound by the "you can only use this power once per round"?

I'm way behind here (don't have the book yet). Was FoB updated in the way that I heard sneak attack was going to be? That is, FoB can be triggered once per turn and is no longer bound by the "you can only use this power once per round"?

Not that I'm aware of. What changed for Flurry of Blows was that now ALL powers in the game are either attack or utility, and if they deal damage, they're attack powers.

This makes it an attack power. Since any attack power that has a target line is indeed an attack, and Flurry of Blows has a target line, that means that it is an attack.

Regardless of the 1/round limitation of Flurry of Blows, you can only make one attack per turn as a free action. So you cannot use flurry of blows in the same turn-yes, turn-as someone grants you a bonus attack as a free action.

Flurry of BLows is already limited to attacks on your turn to begin with, so it's also unusable more than 1/round (Barring Starborn's daily feature or something).

So, beyond the 1/turn free attack limitation and rushing cleats, are there any other effects of this change to Flurry of Blows? Any other feats or items that now work but didn't before?

Important to note that Flurry of blows still:a) Doesn't "hit" (has no attack roll)b) Doesn't use an implement or weapon (no keywords)c) Normally has no damage keyword and most means of adding a damage keyword are ineffective (e.g. lightning weapon only applies to attacks with that weapon - and flurry has no weapon or implement keyword. A rules lawyer might argue that technically lightning weapons add the keyword to Flurry of Blows IF you use starblade flurry, but I think this argument is stretching it a bit!)

Inflicting a damaging condition seems pretty aggressive to me. The nature of Divine Challenge is the very definition of aggression.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

Inflicting a damaging condition seems pretty aggressive to me. The nature of Divine Challenge is the very definition of aggression.

It does not matter whether or not it's an "act of aggression" or not. It matters as to whether or not it fits the exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. If not, it is a utility. If so, it is an attack power. If it is an attack power, using it would indeed constitute an attack.

The actual effect of Divine Challenge is a mark-not an instance of damage. Likewise, Aegis of Assault may make it so that you can later attack the target, but actually placing your mark is not an offensive act in and of itself. Mark features-in general-are not attacks. Mind Spike-where you actually target the creature to deal damage-would be an attack, because, upon application, it deals damage. But that's the test criteria. If the application of the power does not deal damage, it is not an attack power unless it is explicitly stated to be such.

It does not matter whether or not it's an "act of aggression" or not. It matters as to whether or not it fits the exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. If not, it is a utility. If so, it is an attack power. If it is an attack power, using it would indeed constitute an attack.

Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't think there is an exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. Powers are either labeled "attack" or "utility." No reason has ever been given for the distinction AFAIK.

There are several attack powers that do not deal immediate direct damage. These no longer count as "attacks" for the purposes of greater invisibility, etc., but they are still "attack powers." Rain of Steel, for example.

So in essence, I believe we will have to wait until WotC decides to reclassify these class features for us. We simply don't have the tools to do it ourselves.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

It does not matter whether or not it's an "act of aggression" or not. It matters as to whether or not it fits the exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. If not, it is a utility. If so, it is an attack power. If it is an attack power, using it would indeed constitute an attack.

Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't think there is an exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. Powers are either labeled "attack" or "utility." No reason has ever been given for the distinction AFAIK.

Essentials introduced one. All powers are either attack or utility powers, regardless of how they are labeled. That includes class feature powers, racial powers, etc etc.

Edit: Ah here it is: 2. There are 2 types of powers, attack and utility. If the type is not specified and the power has an attack roll or deals damage, it is an attack power. Otherwise it is a utility power. (p. 89/90) That's from the first RC rules changes thread posted up last week, I still don't have my RC.

Now if you mean that rule isn't specific enough for us to classify every power properly, sure you have a point. "deals damage" isn't very specific. And DC certainly has the potential to deal damage. I'd say DC is clearly an attack power, since it deals damage, even if it isn't right away. Aegis on the other hand is not. It never deals damage, the most it can do is trigger an MBA, in which case the MBA power deals damage, not the Aegis.

It does not matter whether or not it's an "act of aggression" or not. It matters as to whether or not it fits the exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. If not, it is a utility. If so, it is an attack power. If it is an attack power, using it would indeed constitute an attack.

Sorry to be obtuse, but I don't think there is an exacting definition of what constitutes an attack power. Powers are either labeled "attack" or "utility." No reason has ever been given for the distinction AFAIK.

Essentials introduced one. All powers are either attack or utility powers, regardless of how they are labeled. That includes class feature powers, racial powers, etc etc.

Edit: Ah here it is: 2. There are 2 types of powers, attack and utility. If the type is not specified and the power has an attack roll or deals damage, it is an attack power. Otherwise it is a utility power. (p. 89/90) That's from the first RC rules changes thread posted up last week, I still don't have my RC.

Now if you mean that rule isn't specific enough for us to classify every power properly, sure you have a point. "deals damage" isn't very specific. And DC certainly has the potential to deal damage. I'd say DC is clearly an attack power, since it deals damage, even if it isn't right away. Aegis on the other hand is not. It never deals damage, the most it can do is trigger an MBA, in which case the MBA power deals damage, not the Aegis.

Obviously I disagree. Setting up a condition under which the target can suffer damage is not the same thing as dealing damage. Unfortunately, we can't really use "examples" to support this case, because WotC hasn't classified powers like DC one way or the other absent of powers that are already attack or utility just by name designation.

If the condition is met, it is the power that deals damage. So the power can deal damage directly (not indirectly). However, I agree there is room for debate, which is why I brought it up in terms of the rule possibly needing some clarity.

If the condition is met, it is the power that deals damage. So the power can deal damage directly (not indirectly). However, I agree there is room for debate, which is why I brought it up in terms of the rule possibly needing some clarity.

It's my opinion that a power that deals ongoing damage does not deal damage. It's the same sort of thing really. A power that bestows a condition that deals damage is not a power that deals damage.

Here are some feats that support the idea that the DC power is dealing damage.

Elemental ChallengeHeroic TierPrerequisite: Genasi, paladinBenefit: When you deal damage to a creature by using your divine challenge power, you can change the damage type from radiant to acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder. Choose each time you deal damage with divine challenge.

I think there's a feat in Psionic powers that lets you forgo the normal effects of Flurry of Blows to push the target or something like that. If you choose to forgo all damage for all targets, does that mean Flurry of Blows becomes a utility?

I think there's a feat in Psionic powers that lets you forgo the normal effects of Flurry of Blows to push the target or something like that. If you choose to forgo all damage for all targets, does that mean Flurry of Blows becomes a utility?

I don't think so. It's either an attack power or it's not, and you have to judge it by its unmodified form.

To introduce a "sometimes" would be far too messy.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.

List of no-action attacks.Dynamic vs Static BonusesPhalanx tactics and buildsCrivens! A Pictsies GuideGood
Powers to intentionally miss withMr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticedWay's to fire around cornersCrits: what their really worthRetroactive bonus vs Static bonus.Runepriest handbook & discussion threadHoly Symbols to hang around your neckWays to Gain or Downgrade ActionsList of bonuses to saving throwsThe Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

I added a thread in the PHB 3 errata forum regarding how this change affects a monk's ability to use free action attacks or take free action attacks given by other characters, such as warlord. I strongly feel that FoB should be an exception to the 1 per turn rule.

I added a thread in the PHB 3 errata forum regarding how this change affects a monk's ability to use free action attacks or take free action attacks given by other characters, such as warlord. I strongly feel that FoB should be an exception to the 1 per turn rule.

How does this affect your ability to benefit from a warlord's granted attack?

You were never allowed to use FoB on someone else's turn.

If your position is that the official rules don't matter, or that house rules can fix everything, please don't bother posting in forums about the official rules. To do so is a waste of everyone's time.